James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.
How can we believe in âglobal warmingâ when the temperature records providing the âevidenceâ for that warming cannot be trusted?
Itâs a big question â and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.
[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem Iâm about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.
Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot â even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.
What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?
Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.
Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the worldâs leading global warming experts â say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State â and they studied your records for a moment and said: âThis isnât right.â What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.
Youâd be gobsmacked, would you not?